If you are against the Iraq war did you support the Yugoslavian war?

Question

It seem to me a more respectable position to say you are against all the recent wars than to cherry pick.

Edit:

There was mass killing in Iraq as well by a dictator (against the Kurds and others) - and from what I have read there was mass murder (call it genocide if you will) on both or all sides in Yugoslavia.

If you think Yugslavia was a neat clean war I would say your are simply a partisan no better than the people on the other side you gleefully criticize.

Answer 1

I`m against war fulstop.
What is wrong with a little dialog..??

Answer 2

War is not something to be entered into willy nilly. I supported Clinton in his effort to stop the slaughter in Bosnia because it was on-going and world consensus was that intervention was called for. I supported our intervention in Kuwait too until I learned that Hussein had asked us if we'd be bothered if he went into Kuwait and our Ambassador April Glaspie said it was none of our concern - that is - until the Saudis complained and that's why we acted. I also wondered at that time why we didn't enter into Iraq and depose Hussein while he was on the run, and then Dick Cheney explained to us why that would have been a bad idea.

After 9/11, I supported our actions in Afghanistan. We had been attacked and the Taliban - which was not a legitimate government to begin with - was harboring our attackers. I did not, however, support our actions in invading Iraq. Hussein was not a present threat and the sanctions had been working and UN pressure was working to get the inspectors back in. There was simply no reason to go in, and there was no way that it wasn't going to be a disaster - as Cheney had explained so clearly all those years before.

So, no, that's not cherry picking. That's looking at each situation and applying the same standard to each. Is this war necessary at this time, and are there no other options? If the answers ar yes and no, then war it must be. Otherwise, not so much.

According to your theory, every time somebody suggests war we should pounce or be accused of cherry picking.

ADDING: The ethnic cleansing of the Kurds in Iraq was not on-going. That in no way diminishes it's significance, but in Bosnia, had the killing stopped, the war would have been unnecessary there as well.

Moreover, I don't see Bush calling for an invasion of Darfur.

Answer 3

My support of a war depends usually on numbers and the reason to go to war.

- Reason A: 9/11, almost 3000 US citizens died as a result of Saudi Arabian terrorists attacking the Twin Towers. Unfortunately, more US soldiers (citizens as well, let's not forget) have now died in Iraq.

- Reason B: WMDs. The idea that WMDs was a reason makes no sense. Saddam Hussein obtained all of his WMDs from the US. This is like handing a man a gun and then shooting him for possessing a firearm. Not to mention that all US weapons handed to Saddam had expiration mechanism in place to keep them from lasting this long so I did not buy this argument.

- Reason C: Saddam Hussein is a bad man. Okay. Look up how many people Saddam killed in an average year in Iraq. Project this out 30 years. Now look up how many people the US killed in the invasion/occupation of Iraq. Once you get these numbers you'll see that we were the worse option for the Iraqi people.

There is nothing wrong with supporting a war or not supporting it. But have logical reasons behind your stance. I was a bit too young to have an opinion about Yugoslavia. But let's talk about Iran as a current target.

Reason 1: Iran is trying to develope the bomb. Okay let's analyze what happens in both cases.

Iran is trying to get the bomb: Okay. But historically, only one country has ever detonated a bomb as a test and then believed it was okay to drop this bomb on a civilian target. The United States dropped two bombs actually, one on Hiroshima and one on Nagasaki. Every other country tested a bomb and basically only waved the nuclear armed flag. The idea that Iran is a "Muslim" nation and is therefore "insane" is illogical. We (the US) were completely against Pakistan (a Muslim nation) obtaining nuclear weapons and guess what happened after they tested them, we became close buddies. India and Pakistan both learned that nuclear bombs are not acceptable weapons in a conventional war, Iran will too.

Second point on this matter, nuclear technology is getting old. It's not a secret really, merely a matter of laboratories figuring out 65 year old technology. Think the US and the west will keep this out of everybodies hands forever? I think not. Our primary concern should be to

1.) Understand their issues and become friendly with them.
2.) Start a slow program to bring them over to our way of thinking.
3.) Create an atmosphere where terrorists cannot thrive through the recruitment of the downtrodden and poor.

Iran is not trying to obtain WMDs: Then there is no need for war.

Answer 4

most wars have ulterior motives - the KLA, who gained most from the bombing of Yugoslavia, are the biggest heroin traffickers in Europe (as high as 90% of total- according to some estimates) and the Balkans is now a hotbed for forced sex trafficking.

The break up of the former Yugoslavia was a mainly german led campaign. By recognizing Croatia and Slovenia they pushed the Balkans to the brink. many Serbs were forced from those regions too- yet the western backed governments have never been held to account.
BTW did you know that the Pentagon flew Mujahideen fighters from Afghanistan to fight the Serbs? where does that leave your cherry-picking arguement?

Answer 5

The conflict and bombing perfomed by the US on Kosovo and the former Yugoslavia was justified by the U.N. and in the interest of human rights violations. Ethnic cleansing was taking place as opposing factions clashed.

We had no reason to attack Iraq. They were not terrorist groups in Iraq, because Saddamn would not have any other powerful bases besides his own. Iraq did not have WMD's. Every international intelligence agency said Iraq had no part in 9/11 and did not threaten the security of the US.

Answer 6

There is a giant difference in the two wars. There was genocide going on in Yugoslavia, Muslims were being exterminated and NATO responded,We are a part of the forces there. We didn't need to do anything in Iraq, We just made it easier for Iran to stir up trouble.

Answer 7

I reluctantly suported the Yugoslavia war, because there was a long and sustained diplomatic effort to avoid the war, and there was an immediate threat of the war spreading into Greece, Turkey, and Russia.

I never suported the Iraq war, or the Afghan war. None of those conditions were satisfied. Both of those wars could be avoided with more competent diplomacy. And everybody would have been better off.

Answer 8

We were peacekeeping force in Yugoslavia as part of a UN force.

We are invaders and illegal occupants of Iraq.

Cherry picking is smart. You only get the good ones. Look at former Yugoslavian countries today verses Iraq.

Answer 9

I NEVER support war. But I am a realist - some wars just have to be fought. Iraq didn't have to be fought - and Bush was told NOT to by his military advisors. Funny that the guys that war for a living didn't want to go in either. . .

Makes one wonder. . .

Answer 10

I supported the war in Afghanistan, as they were involved in 9-11...I was against invading Iraq from day one.

Answer 11

i think of the attitude in united statesa. is that if we bypass to conflict we are able to assist those we ask to combat and attempt to end the pastime as quickly as began. this may well be an instantaneous consequence of the the Vietnam conflict that became fought and paid for with the lives of 58000 American squaddies and countless wounded devoid of attaining strategic victory over North Vietnam or the NLF. ..